Page:Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.pdf/237



Arizona, for example, the plaintiffs in Bowyer v. Ducey alleged that the election was tainted by the introduction of "hundreds of thousands of illegal, ineligible, duplicate or purely fictitious ballots." A Federal judge dismissed their suit, finding it "void of plausible allegations" and "sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence." Likewise, in Ward v. Jackson, an Arizona State-court judge dismissed a lawsuit by the State GOP chair following a two-day trial, finding no evidence of misconduct, fraud, or illegal votes. This ruling was unanimously upheld by the State supreme court, where all seven justices were appointed by GOP governors.

In Georgia, a State court dismissed Boland v. Raffensperger, which alleged that tens of thousands of illegal ballots were cast by out-of-State voters or with invalid signature matches. The judge found that "the Complaint's factual allegations … rest on speculation rather than duly pled facts" and "do not support … a conclusion that sufficient illegal votes were cast to change or place in doubt the result of the election." The judge who issued this decision had been appointed by a Republican governor, as had seven of the eight justices of the State supreme court who upheld her ruling. Likewise, a Federal judge denied relief to the plaintiff in Wood v. Raffensperger, which alleged that new procedures for checking absentee ballot signatures spoiled the result by making it harder to reject illegal ballots, finding "no basis in fact or law to grant him the relief he seeks."